Westerns Books

It came in descent condition it was used like the owner said but not completely beat up. Descent condition.

This version of the Republic (translated by Tom Griffith) is pleasant and readable; it definitely has its moments and would probably be a good way to first encounter the dialogue. But do not use it for serious study, since the translation can be quite free and sometimes confusing. For instance, the word usually translated as "advantageous" (sumpheron) in Thrasymachus's argument is rendered as "good for." This is a nice attempt to capture the meaning in a natural way - but I personally wouldn't play around with the word "good" in a translation of the Republic.

Of course, Plato's work is nothing short of timeless. However, I recently found a hard-paperback version of this book that I would have liked to have more than this flimsy paperback format.

Grube is the most accurate and faithful translator of Plato. Unlike most other translators, in particular the horrendous Allan Bloom, Grube was both a first rate Greek scholar and had no ax to grind. You are always in good hands with one of his translations.

Most people know this book by title, not by content. I must admit reading this book is not for the faint at heart. Rhetorics will be thrown in your face as if it is common language and some sense of historical background on the Greeks may help as well.

But this shouldn't hold you back from reading this classic piece, all 450 pages of it. It is not so much the result of all thinking, but the process of thinking itself which makes this a great book. Known as one of the greatest Greek philosiphers of all-time you can get a taste of his way of thinking and the time he was living in.

If you have any interest in history and philosophy you'll love this book.

This review is of ISBN-10: 0-87220-136-8, Plato * Republic, translated by G.M.A. Grube and revised by C.D.C. Reeve.

I somehow made it through high school and college learning about Plato and Socrates without reading any full-length works. That's changing this spring as I'm taking a discussion-based class on Plato's Republic. This text was recommended by our instructor, and I can see why. The translation is not cumbersome by striving for sheer literalness, but instead seeks to capture the flavor of the discussions Socrates had with others that Plato as a youth observed.

Footnotes are provided to explain the occasional word that has a different classical than contemporary meaning -- and yet you can read each of the 10 books (chapters) that comprise this volume first without attending to the footnotes, then re-reading the books along with their footnotes.

After having seen what gifted vs. pedestrian translations can do to the vigor and beauty of classic works (Beowulf, the Epic of Gilgamesh and The Odyssey come to mind), I can understand why Grube's translation is highly regarded. According to the scholar who performed the revision, no such work was called for until 20 years after publication (I am guessing to introduce more current English idiom and turn of phrase). The person who conducted the revision was encouraged to do so by the translator's family, which speaks to continuity.

Given its impact on Western philosophy and thought, the book may at first seem slender to you. Keep in mind that much of it is in the form of dialog -- presented for the most part without space-consuming "I said"s and "he said"s (clarity is kept by paragraph indents. The brief italicized introductions help ensure ready comprehension without spoonfeeding any philosophy.

The index and bibliography also are clear, well-presented and helpful. Note that the latter is toward the front of the book.

I applaud the price point; however, I think purchasers would have been better served by paying a buck more for better-quality paper stock. This is a book that cries out to be kept on one's bookshelf well past the completion of a particular class or a once-over reading. Unfortunately, the paper stock already suffers from read-through, even before being subjected to the pencil/pen jottings that many readers will be compelled to make. Those of you who use a highlighter, I'd advise to try with caution because the paper seems pretty absorbent.

I bought this because I was interested in the bands and what happened. I am really into the music and like it a lot. The authors apparently do not. They also have no sympathy for alternative religious views. They have focused almost entirely on the sensational aspects of the scene. They appear to have no awareness that many of musicians they are interviewing are putting them on. Most obviously Dani Filth, whose band is not actually Black Metal.

I only read about half of it, skipping around. They repeat the same stuff a lot. The Jungian analysis parts are just silly. Their pro Christian anti Satanist propaganda is lame. I guess they are trying to scare people off this music and frighten the parents of the fans.

I enjoyed most of this book, but it just seemed it tapered off towards the late middle to the end. Wasen't as in deapth as i thought it was going to be. I thought it was going to be more about the bands them selves, but it wasen't. More of history and culture and things like that.

This is a great book if you are wanting to know more about the underground world of black metal. It also has subjects of diff. religions, Nazism, Fascism, Norse Mythology. It also has very good interviews with Black Metal musicians.

THIS IS A GREAT BOOK IF YOU WANT TO LEARN ABOUT BLACK METAL AND THE EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED WITHIN IT.

A fascinating account of the formation of Norwegian Black Metal and its aftermath that attempts to delve into the minds of a handful of originators. The first half of the book makes for intriguing reading as the events of the black metal subculture branch out into an unsuspecting society. The latter half of the book attempts to discover the motivation behind the more sinister deeds of the black metal fraternity, but at times tends to be a little confusing and lacking focus, which is possibly a reflection of the state of mind of the book's antagonists. The authors successfully present the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions, ensuring this book is a great conversation starter.

When I read a novel it has to hold my interest and The Shopkeeper did more that hold my interest--I kept turning the pages to see how the story would end. Whether you're looking for Western Fiction or just a good read, I heartily recommend The Shopkeeper. I'm looking forward to Mr. Best's next novel.

This was my first Western and I must admit I thoroughly enjoyed it, in fact, I couldn't put it down. I love Steve Dancy !

This is a great book. Steve Dancy is a very interesting character. He has a modern mind operating in the old west.

I highly recommend this book.

This was an excellent read that once you started you couldn't put down. In every chapter there was a new twist that kept your interest level high. Even my wife, who would normally not read a western, was captivated by the story and thought it was an intellingently written, interesting book. When will the next one be released???

I chose this book because of the reviews as a gift for an avid Western reader who doesn't troll online or frequent bookstores because of an illness. He received this wonderful gift last Wednesday and finished it on his second day LOVING IT and wanting another "Steve Dancy" book NOW. He'll have to wait for Christmas it appears but thank you James D. Best for a fabulous new character and wonderfully written book from someone who loves his (quality) Westerns. You have brightened someone's days who needed some brightening! His daughter is jealous that SHE didn't give it to him. So, well done Mr. Best... Keep writing!!

At first I wasn't sure I could get into it, Lonesome Dove set the bar pretty high, but after the first few pages I was back into the characters (old and new). Well done! A must if you want to follow up with Call, Lorie, and Pea.

I originally read this 10 years ago and I remembered not liking it, but I decided to sit down and read the Lonesome Dove trilogy back to back. Lonesome Dove is an incredible book. You feel like you are there with the characters. Commanche Moon is a blood bath, but at least the writing is good. Streets of Laredo, on the other hand, is one huge disappointment. The plot line itself is at least tolerable, however it appears to be one big advertisement to try to sell more Lonesome Dove copies...whereas the book ought to be able to stand on its own, the reader is constantly treated to gratuitous dull flashbacks to scenes from Lonesome Dove.

very interesting book. keep your wanting to know whats next. the story about the early life of the settlers. how they endured early life of weather, indians, no water.

The author has delivered a good book that is appealing to readers. The ending is bizarre. Cut a man's leg off and walk 100 miles without him bleeding to death, farfetched. But otherwise a decent book.

It's obvious that the author wishes to damage western sentimentality. All his novels have a bitterswwet flavor, with guaranteed tragedy at the end of the book to beloved characters. It's a shame he reduces the main character to such an unsatisfying ending.

His side characters are less appealing than those portrayed in Lonesome Dove. And the book feels rushed at times. Why he chose 17 years post-Lonesome Dove limits our involvement in the story. Wouldn't 5 years post lonesome Dove been more appealing to his readers? A 70 year old bounty hunter in the 1800's. Not very appealing.

The plot of STREETS OF LAREDO seems simple enough. Captain Woodrow Call, bounty hunter extraordinaire, is hired by Colonel Terry, the president of a railroad, to capture train robber and serial killer, Joey Garza. But there are enough twists and turns in Larry McMurtry's novel to turn a simple situation into a complex, risky adventure where both laws and human endurance are stretched to the limit, and often broken.

From the start, Call's quest is filled with obstacles. His colleague, Pea Eye Parker, refuses to join him on the hunt for the first time in years. Like Call, Pea Eye, is getting old and isn't sure he's up to another hunt, especially one that will take him far away from his wife and their five children. Call is also accompanied by Colonel Terry's New York accountant, Ned Bookshire, a man who knows he's out of his depth in the rugged west, but who must accompany Call to keep track of expenses for the Colonel, or else lose his job. From there, things get worse, especially when more than one serial killer arrives in the area to cause trouble.

I've never read a Larry McMurtry novel before, and although I'm told STREETS OF LAREDO is a sequel to LONESOME DOVE, this novel stands well on its own, despite occasional references to the past. Especially interesting was McMurtry's use of back story to provide intriguing and useful details about main characters and a few secondary characters. I have to admit that some back stories were too long. Also, while POV changed often and smoothly, nearly every character used the word "foolish" to describe their past mistakes. By the time Joe Garza reflects on his "foolish" mistakes, I'm wishing McMurtry had kept a thesaurus nearby while writing. Still, McMurtry's talent for detail, narrative description, and riveting storytelling made this novel a great read.

Although I haven't finished reading this text, I think I can accurately comment on it. The information comes from an economics perspective. that's a good thing, if you have an economics background, which I do. I like the way this book reads. It offers a good deal of information about commercial real estate using both financial and urban economics. I don't believe this book is appropriate for an undergrad student. This book assumes you have a basic finance background and some understanding of urban economics. In short, if you have an econ degree or even a finance degree, I think you'll find this text very useful in helping you to understand what drives the commercial real estate market, how to predict where this market is going, how to analyze it, and how to valuate it.

Just everything okay, considering it had to be shipped from the US to the UK, arrived even earlier than some of the books I ordered same time from UK suppliers.
Small unsubstantial damage on cover of book though, probably caused by transport.

This is one of the most comprehensive, analytical and thorough texts on topics concerning commercial real estate investment that I have come accross. It would be useful for both advanced students with real estate interests and finance professionals, who seek exposure to fundamental real estate (and real estate securities) analysis. Participants in the real estate industry mishgt find the text useful, but basic. The book is also useful as a reference guide for real estate professionals looking for a particular mathematical formula.

The authors cover a very broad range of topics - from urban economics, to fundamental (supply/demand) real estate analysis, to real estate valuation techniques as well as more specialized topics, such as commercial mortgage backed securities and real estate development. The book really stands out in the breadth of its disourse both on qualitative and quantitative topics.

This book is really serious. It gives you data sets, a massive amount of study questions with solutions and sample programs (Argus & Crystal Ball--which is used for probability). This book is like the bible. It goes from simple real estate i.e buy low & sell high all the way to mortgage backed securities, options and derivatives. After reading the book you will know more than most executives.

It may not be for those that are more into urban planning or construction management, but if you need and want a book that blends real estate with the capital markets this is the one.I highly recommend it.

Commercial real estate is not for the faint of heart. I have been in residential real estate for a while and have on several occasions dealt with commercial real estate folks and issues surrounding it.

On the plus side, if you are looking for an exhaustive source of information on evaluating commercial real estate, you have arrived. This volume is going to give you all the information you need to analyze any situation to death. Perhaps to the point that small bits of brain dribble out your ear.

If your a dabbler... or someone who has thought, "Gee... I wonder if commercial real estate would be interesting to get into?" then this is NOT the place for you to start that journey of self discovery.

There are much smaller, shorter, lighter more digestible books out there on the subject that will give you a feel for what you might be getting into.

So, if you are someone already knee deep in commercial real estate, or someone deadly serious about being able to really analyze commercial properties, then this one is for you.

This review mostly concerns the Enquiry. The Letter is primarily a defense of Hume's earlier Treatise of Human Nature, while his Abstract is an anonymous review of the Treatise. It strikes me as very funny, though not surprising, that Hume would review his own work. Funny because any author would give his right arm to get at least one favorable review when all the other critics are completely missing its point. Unsurprising because Hume was probably one of the only people alive at that time who could truly grasp all the facets of his radical philosophical claims.

The Enquiry was written after the Treatise. Hume, though he claimed the opposite, seems never to have really recovered from the blow he took from seeing his Treatise "fall dead born from the press." As a result, his Enquiry is far more cautious in the steps it takes. (For those of you who have read both, yes, I swear, Hume IS more cautious. Compare the claims.) A more robust philosophical stance is taken in his Treatise, while a more focused stance is taken in his Enquiry.

The Enquiry is mainly a work of epistemology and as such, scrutinizes our methods of acquiring knowledge. Making perhaps the most radical (and poignant) claim in all of modern philosophy, it posits, and supports, that there is NO causation, only conjunction. That, for example, when we see a glass drop and break, we cannot say we know gravity caused this (in the way we know two plus two equals four). All we see is constant conjunction. The connection is lacking, i.e., it is not inconceivable that the glass wouldn't bounce, turn to ash, or dissolve into sand (the way it is inconceivable that two plus two equals five). This, in effect, nullifies all the so called "laws" of nature that are formed by science. (Note that this does not state that there are no laws of nature, just that we really can never make the claim that we ever really know there are laws of nature.)

This could be thought of as the philosophical shot heard round the world. Agree or disagree, Hume must be answered. Hume has historically been charged with creating an intellectual and philosophical cul-de-sac with his skepticism. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, Hume makes a claim which none can refute, but at the same time one which none can accept. In effect, Hume's philosophy seems to bind the human mind, stopping its journey of discovery and ultimately accomplishing what his predecessor, John Locke, set out to do, i.e., map the extent of human knowledge.

However, where one may see Hume's philosophy as shackles and fetters in the search for truth, one could also equally see his philosophy as liberation. Implicit in his philosophy is the idea that ANYTHING is possible. There are no shackles, no fetters, no limits; only those that we create for ourselves. Our limits are self-imposed, constructs of our observance (and inference) of connection. In this way Hume appears in the same light as the Eastern masters seeing that reality is not what we have (through experiential knowledge) believed it to be. It is something much more wondrous. In Zen, our causal thinking is the only barrier between the person and enlightenment. Hume could be seen as implying that when the idea of causality is removed, with only conjunction remaining in its place, the state of true knowledge and wisdom (true zen) is achieved.

This, of course, is only idle speculation. But it is stated so as to demonstrate the richness and immense possibility Hume's philosophy possesses when seen in the correct light. Instead of saying, "Nothing is certain," after reading Hume, one can say, with equal validity, "Anything is possible." The first statement approaches philosophy with despair. The second approaches it with a sense of childlike wonder and hope at the immense possibilities of reality. It approaches life as a beginning, not an ending. It approaches life as the philosopher approaches it.

If one accepts the methodology of Descartes in applying scepticism to reason and the senses, in effect denying the existence of all things but a "thinking thing," two entailments are logically consequent: Either Berkeley's idealism or Hume's scepticism. I don't accept Descartes' starting point, so I find the entailments confused and incoherent. But if one does accept Descartes' starting point, then the two extremes must be heeded. If for no other reason than observing the absurdity of either man's conclusions, it is valuable to read both entailments. But in their confused process, both men bring certain salient features to light.

Hume accepts Descartes starting point, making it his own. But to Descartes method, he adds Pyrrhonist scepticism: That all reason leads to infinite regress, and that all sensations (or impressions) can not be trusted.

Hume begins with the conclusion that all sense perception is either an impression or idea. Even memory and imagination, two other faculties of the mind, are conflated into these two species of perceptions, as impressions. Their difference is one of degree (vivacity), not of kind. Hence, Hume is the author of what is known as the "Copy Principle." Instead of unmediated, direct perception through the ordinary senses, all perception is mediated by the imagination into impressions and ideas. From this follows certain resemblances, contiguity, and causal associations between impressions or ideas, and from this association we develop a sense of self. But even the notion of causality here is one of implied inference, not of actual inductive reason. Hume denies there is any real causality that can be known, although we operate "as if" we infer cause from effect. Even probability is reduced to a mere association of ideas and/or impressions; because neither reason (which always leads to infinite regress) or senses (which can always be deceived) can actually be true. The Enquiry also treats of miracles and the testimony of others derisively; but don't we rely on the testimony of others who claim the earth is round rather than flat, just as we rely on others who testify to miracles in a byegone era? After all, few of us have direct experience with a spherical earth (Popper makes this observation).

Hume's method incorporates five kinds of scepticism: (i) methodological, (ii) conceptual, (ii) nomological, (iv) explanatory, and (v) reductive empiricism. His commitment to scepticism is not without some capitulation. While he denies absolute causality and inductive inference and probability in an actual senses, he relies on them for practical purposes. One can't remain a pyrrhonist for long; some elements of reason and some degree of confidence in impressions is necessary for ordinary life. But if one starts with Descartes' starting point, extreme scepticism is a necessary entailment. Which, after seeing Hume deny so much intuition, is it really worth starting with Descartes' scepticism? Answering that question is what makes Hume interesting.

David Hume was perhaps the leading light in the Empiricist movement in philosophy. Empiricism is seen in distinction from Rationalism, in that it doubts the viability of universal principles (rational or otherwise), and uses sense data as the basis of all knowledge - experience is the source of knowledge. Hume was a skeptic as well as empiricist, and had radical (for the time) atheist ideas that often got in the way of his professional advancement, but given his reliance on experience (and the kinds of experiences he had), his problem with much that was considered conventional was understandable.

Hume's major work, 'A Treatise of Human Nature', was not well received intially - according to Hume, 'it fell dead-born from the press'. Hume reworked the first part of this work in a more popular way for this text, which has become a standard, and perhaps the best introduction to Empiricism.

In a nutshell, the idea of empiricism is that experience teaches, and rules and understanding are derived from this. However, for Hume this wasn't sufficient. Just because billiard balls when striking always behave in a certain manner, or just because the sun always rose in the morning, there was no direct causal connection that could be automatically affirmed - we assume a necessary connection, but how can this be proved?

Hume's ideas impact not only metaphysics, but also epistemology and psychology. Hume develops empiricism to a point that empiricism is practically unsupportable (and it is in this regard that Kant sees this text as a very important piece, and works toward his synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism). For Hume, empirical thought requires skepticism, but leaves it unresolved as far as what one then needs to accept with regard to reason and understanding. According to scholar Eric Steinberg, 'A view that pervades nearly all of Hume's philosophical writings is that both ancient and modern philosophers have been guilty of optimistic and exaggerated claims for the power of human reason.'

Some have seen Hume as presenting a fundamental mistrust of daily belief while recognising that we cannot escape from some sort of framework; others have seen Hume as working toward a more naturalist paradigm of human understanding. In fact, Hume is open to a number of different interpretations, and these different interpretations have been taken up by subsequent philosophers to develop areas of synthetic philosophical ideas, as well as further developments more directly out of Empiricism (such as Phenomenology).

This is in fact a rather short book, a mere 100 pages or so in many editions. As a primer for understanding Hume, the British Empiricists (who include Hobbes, Locke, and Berkeley), as well as the major philosphical concerns of the eighteenth century, this is a great text with which to start.

Hume, I and many others think, was the greatest philosopher to have written in English, and this is the book to pick up if you want to introduce yourself to Saint David's distinctive brand of classical empiricism. This is a must-read for anyone with even a passing interest in philosophy, and it's hard for me to see how anyone interested in the history of modern thought can avoid reading this book or the corresponding sections of Hume's Treatise.

As is well-known, the Enquiry concerning Human Understanding was intended as an encapsulation and popularization of the views Hume defended in Book I of his magnum opus, A Treatise of Human Nature. Hume assumed that book's commercial failure could be accounted for by its length, difficulty, and lack of accessibility, and so, being a man who desired literary fame, he hoped to acquire commercial success by presenting the same ideas in a more appealing and accessible manner. Unfortunately, it seems Hume misunderstood what the literati of his day were looking for in a philosophical treatise. For the Enquiry, like the Treatise before it, didn't bring him the fame he sought. Still, Hume did understand what goes into writing excellent philosophical prose, and consequently this book is a much easier read than Book I of the Treatise. Indeed, this book constitutes an excellent introduction to Hume's thought, and, except for maybe Berkeley's Three Dialogues, I can't think of another primary source that would serve as a better introduction to classical British empiricism.

Now, let's get to the ideas here. Hume, like the other classical empiricists, was primarily concerned with the psychological question of the origin of our concepts. About the answer to this question, the empiricists were all agreed--our concepts are furnished by experience, which includes both sensory experience and introspection (i.e., the experience of our own mental states). And the empiricists also agreed about the way we can justify our beliefs. Some beliefs are true (or false) in virtue of the ideas they contained, and we can know their truth (or falsity) simply by thinking about them; other beliefs are true (or false) in virtue of how the external world is, and we can know their truth (or falsity) only by drawing on our experiences of the world. According to Hume, all substantial conclusions about the world fall into this second category. That is, the truth (or falsity) of all substantial claims about the existence and nature of things in the external world can be discovered only by checking those claims against the evidence of our senses.

The traditional way of placing Hume within the story of empiricism goes something like this. Hume takes up the empiricism of Locke and Berkeley and pushes it to its logical conclusion. Whereas Locke and Berkeley hadn't been wholly consistent empiricists, Hume, the true believer, demonstrates that classical empiricism leads to a pretty thoroughgoing skepticism. Since he's wholly convinced of the truth of his empiricist premises, Hume is willing to accept the skepticism that goes along with them. However, those who aren't convinced of that his empiricism is obviously correct think that Hume has actually demonstrated the implausibility of his empiricism. If this is where empiricism leads, they think, then it's clear that we need to reject empiricism. Indeed, some, like Thomas Reid, view Hume's arguments as constituting a reductio ad absurdum of his sort of empiricism. On this interpretation, Hume's philosophy essentially presents a dilemma for all future thinkers: abandon empiricism, or accept empiricism along with Humean skepticism.

But a different view of Hume, one of Hume as proposing a wholly naturalistic account of the human mind, has recently emerged as a competitor to the general conception of Hume's place within philosophy sketched in the previous paragraph. This interpretation downplays Hume's skepticism and emphasizes his professed intentions to provide a positive account of the operation of the human mind that appealed to nothing beyond the evidence of our senses. According to proponents of this interpretation, Hume is most interested in a description of the operation of the human mind. He's describing what human nature allows us to know and what it doesn't allow us to know. Furthermore, he argues that our nature is such that, where it fails to provide us with the resources to acquire the knowledge we might want, it provides us with a natural habit of forming the right conclusions anyway. Even though our nature limits our knowledge of the world, it ensures that we possess the habits of mind needed to make our way in the world. Hume dubs all these habits of mind "custom."

If this view is correct, then Hume has abjured many of the normative aims of traditional epistemological inquiry. He isn't attempting to show how we can answer a skeptic or why we have good reason to believe what we think we know. Instead, he wants us to stand back from our everyday beliefs and think about the natural processes that result in them. How, exactly, do our minds operate? How do we come to think what we do about the world? Hume thinks that this sort of inquiry will lead us see that, at some point, the explanation of why we think what we think reaches certain brute facts about the operation of the human mind. When we reach these points, there is nothing more to be said. We simply can't help thinking in these ways, and we lack the resources to demonstrate that these ways of thinking constitute an accurate way to represent the operation of the external world. And, Hume claims, it turns out that many of the fundamental elements of our conception of the world--the belief that things stand in causal relations to one another, the belief that we can know that there is a world outside our minds, the belief the future will resemble the past--end up not being open to ratification by experience. With respect to beliefs of these sorts, we ultimately have to appeal to custom in order to explain their existence and popularity. Hume, then, can be seen as demolishing the pretensions of reason in order to make room for a wholly naturalistic account of human thinking.

First I would like to commend the excellent review of this book by CT Dreyer in which he correctly shows how Hume extended the empiricism of Locke and Berkeley to the point where skepticism seemed our only honest way of thinking about our knowledge of the world. Hume's questioning of induction, of how we can be sure tomorrow will be like today , his questioning of how we can trust our senses to know the outside world, his questioning of how we can hold our world logically together when analysis reveals that there is no necessary connection between ' cause' and 'effect' in everyday life action means he wakened not only Kant from his dogmatic slumber but Philosophy itself from the sense that it will provide absolute understanding.
Hume is a very clear writer. I remember reading the famous billiard ball account of causality in which our common sense view of ' before' and ' after' is questioned and taken apart. I believe Hume says after this account, something to the effect and ' still when we leave the room we leave by the door and not by the window'. A friend of mine in this class when the class ended opened the window ( on the ground floor ) and went out that way.
This is difficult and great philosophy. I do not pretend to understand it or its implications fully. A test of the mind and a necessary read for anyone who would know Western Philosophy.

This course is usually divided into 2 semesters. I bought 1 book for both and am saving money!!

--whatever year you happen to read it. Jacques Barzun's *From Dawn to Decadence* is simply a magnificent work of popular scholarship--fascinating, informative, and entertaining; what's more, it's lucid and readable from start to finish. It's the rare book that even after 800 pages you're still sorry to see it end...all the more so in this instance since you suspect the author had the knowledge and insight to have gone on agreeably for at least another 800 pages.

Barzun begins the biography of our culture's 500-year lifespan with Martin Luther and the significance of the Protestant "revolution" and he traces its development all the way to its exhausted decrepitude in late 20th century postmodernism. It's hard to imagine anyone writing this story with any more panache and authority than Barzun, a scholar who has clearly assimilated this vast span of history--its personalities, ideas, art, politics, and religious and social upheavals--and from it distilled its essence from the press of his own mature vision.

History, as Barzun clearly and honestly states in his introduction, can never be totally objective. Physics teaches us that the observer always colors the observed. So what good fortune it is to have Barzun as the observer--urbane, witty, knowledgeable. Having lived 90+ years, Barzun hasn't only studied a lot of history, he's seen a lot of it, too. So one feels compelled to respect his panoramic perspective even though it tends towards "old fogeyism," especially in the final thirty pages or so of *From Dawn to Decadence* where he sums up our culture's demise in a scathingly dismissive role call of practically everything. Barzun, like the stereotypical crotchety grandpa from his recliner, never seems to tire of pointing out that there's nothing new under the sun ((true enough)) and for any cultural manifestation we take as characteristically contemporary, he can point out some analogous example from three hundred years ago. "So you young'uns think you invented the sexual revolution, eh? Bah! Back in 1648..." etc.

Still, that's not to say that Barzun doesn't have a point or that his critique of contemporary "culture" isn't legitimate or entirely off the mark. It's hard to argue against the notion that the western worldview is growing dim and our culture unraveling all around us. On the other hand, reading through this 800-page survey of catastrophes and innovations, one is hard-pressed to find a period of time in the last 500 years when the culture *didn't* appear to be in imminent danger of expiring. Perhaps it's already dead and just doesn't know it--but that's another story.

*From Dawn to Decadence* brings together an enormous amount of information crafted into a narrative of compelling drive and power. If any work of history can merit being called a "page-turner," this would be that work. I don't think it possible to read this book without benefit and enjoyment. For a culture that has all but forgotten its roots and its past, *From Dawn to Decadence* is an essential tonic to open our eyes to where we've been, where we are, and where--if anywhere--we may be headed.

From Dawn To Decadence, by Jacques Barzun, a cultural critic, historian, and former Columbia College provost and professor, was published at the height of the pre-millennial Y2K fever and purported to be a detailed analysis of the last five hundred years of civilization, or at least Western Civilization. Its subtitle is 1500 To The Present, 500 Years Of Western Cultural Life. It is, however, nothing of the sort. It is a shapeless, formless hodgepodge of ideas and incidents, biographies of the usual suspects, like Luther, Erasmus, Cromwell, Mozart, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Shaw, and Byron, and preenings, that offer no coherent view nor explanation for the last half eon. He also tries to elevate forgotten `names', such as James Agate, that were forgotten for a reason, although obviously favorites of Barzun, while barely mentioning titans like Shakespeare- save for a great quote from Samuel Pepys dissing the Bard's plays, Newton, Picasso, and Einstein. Barzun is not insightful enough to knock a person off their pins with a startling premise, as Jared Diamond did in his 1998 tome Guns, Germs, And Steel, nor is he the prose stylist that Daniel J. Boorstin is in his classic 1983 and 1992 books The Discoverers and The Creators. In those works, Boorstin made history fun again, by bringing a novelistic technique to stodgy historical tomes.

Barzun's tome, which he claims took a lifetime to write (he was born in 1907 and the book hit print in 2000), is simply a giant, frustrating muddle. And it's not just the text of what he says, but his presentation on the page. The book has numerous sidebars in the text that distract visually, but even worse, offer nothing intellectually, with some of them being patently ridiculous quotes from vapid pseudo-celebrities like rapper Ice T and comedian Bill Murray. Ironically, this is the sort of shortcut literary and intellectual technique pioneered in glossy magazines of the sort that Barzun contemptuously dismisses as decadent, and without merit. Read Edward Gibbon's Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire or Winston Churchill's History Of The English Speaking Peoples for a real sense of what true historical inquiry is about and written. Yet, the biggest defect of the book is that it simply adds nothing to the known facts it recounts, does so with no grand style, and leaves one asking what purpose did the book serve?

Unwittingly, Barzun often undermines his own claims. For example, he states, `the demand for genius has died out,' then proceeds to write a book that demonstrates this fact. Or, he writes, `Bad writing, it is easily verified, has never kept scholarship from being published,' and writes a book laced with egregious spelling errors (incredibly, he even misspells Samuel Butler's dystopian classic Erewhon as Erehwon so that it spells Nowhere backwards!), worse grammar, poor punctuation, and ill-parsed sentences. Or, he claims, `The West has been the mongrel civilization par excellence,' as if it were a gift from the gods bestowed first and only to himself. Not that he does not have some bright spots- such as logically and semiotically defending the use of Man in the non-sexual sense of the word, or giving the most cogent definition of scientism I've ever read- not bad science, but science misapplied to areas it has no sway over- the law or ethics, but these are too few and far between.

In short, Diamond had a great idea, and Boorstin the writerly gift to excite. Barzun lacks both insight and the ability to convey knowledge well. When he claims that `the peoples of the West offered the world a set of ideas and institutions not found earlier or elsewhere,' it's as if he believes he's said something new and pristine, where others have said it before and better- or did I say that already?

I have been reading and comtemplating about the Meaning of My Life for 4-5 years now. After reading many books on a variety of subjects, I still recommend Barzun's book as my Top-2 best book for understanding LIFE, and therefore providing the context for piecing together a meaning for YOUR LIFE. My other top pick is Lessons of History by Will & Ariel Durant. Dawn is not a chronological or objective presentation of history. The book derives coherence by allowing the reader an intimate view inside of one, heavily-opinionated mind. This method might have produced gibberish if the writer was an ordinary scholar. But because Barzan's mind was honed by a lifetime of research, and he was an exceptionally gifted thinker on the subject to begin with, the method produced an exceptionally excellent book. I do not think it is an easy book to read, especially if you do not skip any of the aside comments. You may need to skip parts on the first reading, and come back to it later to cover all of it. However, I think you will definitely feel a sense of achievement after reading it. You may gradually develop wisdom about how to live your own life after reflecting on the human condition covered in such detail over such vast time periods by the book.

I just finished this book for the first time. I'm very impressed you've read it seven times! (see review below) It took me about three hours per day for four weeks to finish (including some re-reading). My current view is that it's the best book I've ever read - not an objective statement, obviously, but a description of my thankfulness to Mr Barzun for sharing his astonishingly rich perceptions. He's spot on even about the last 50 years - ignore the reviewers flustered by his lack of political correctness (eg Alistair Cooke's snotty comment about "idiosyncracy of judgement").

Also, he turned me on to Hazlitt - what a writer!

This is a masterfully in-depth survey of cultural evolution. Barzun goes several layers of fame down, to show the significance of numerous poorly remembered innovators, whose contributions rival those of more often-repeated names. For just one example we have Lady Marquise de Ramboullet, who in the 1600s opened her Paris salon, dedicated to high-minded conversation between men and women. The issues her guests discussed included government, science, or the church -- subjects which were previously matters for men of rank. But here a cultured woman set the rules and tone for debate on matters public and private. In de Ramboullet's game, the object was not to "win" arguments or humiliate opponents, but to stimulate creativity, interaction, and mutual admiration. The participants were to treat each other as ladies and gentlemen, the way they dreamed of being treated themselves. Their competition was to raise the level of consideration and self-respect for every guest. Perhaps de Ramboullet's salon was a sophisticated play, set apart from the real world. But the play soon became a standard by which the world and its human relations were judged. (p. 187-188)

With loads of lights like this for century after century, who cares if Barzun turns into a sour-puss on contemporary culture by the book's end?